IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. AO SAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

On 12 May 1960, the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 38451, granted the petition for
naturalization of the above-named appellant, Ao
San.  However, on motion of the Solicitor
General, the court, on 11 January 1963, issued an order, the dis­positive portion of which is as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, the decision is hereby set aside,
and the petition to allow the petitioner to take his oath as citizen of the
Philippines is here­by DENIED and the petition DISMISSED.  However, in view of the fact that the
evidence does not show that the petitioner suffers from any disqualification
and on the other hand, the deficiency in the peti­tion and in the evidence may
be remedied, the DISMISSAL is hereby declared to be WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

The present case is an appeal from the foregoing order.

The original decision
granting the appellant’s petition for naturalization was promulgated on 16 May
1960.  After a period of two (2) years,
appellant filed a petition alleging compliance with the requirements of
Republic Act 530 and praying that after hear­ing, he be
admitted to Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.  Before this petition could be heard, however,
the Solicitor General filed a motion to vacate the decision and opposition to
oath-taking, alleging defects in the amended petition for naturalization, lack
of jurisdiction of the trial court, lack of qualification of the applicant to
become a citizen of the Phil­ippines and unreliability of the vouching
witnesses.  Acting there­upon, the court
issued the appealed order.

The assigned error that
the lower court erred in setting aside the decision because it had become final, is without merit. 
The established doctrine in naturalization proceedings is that the deci­sion
rendered therein does not become final until after the issuance of the
naturalization certificate and compliance with Republic Act No. 530 (Pe vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20375, 31 Jan. 1966; Gan Tsitung vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20819, 21 Feb. 1967). 
Until then, the only vested right is that of the Republic to see to it
that only applicants fully qualified should be admitted to membership in the
body politic.

In his petition,
appellant gave his address as 1001 Interior 9, Felipe II, Binondo,
Manila, but according to his alien certificate of
residence, he resides at 742 Alvarado and in his immigrant certificate of
residence, at 546 Azcarraga, Manila.  The
latter two were not mentioned in his petition. 
This failure is fatal to the petition and Affects the jurisdiction of
the court.  (Keng Giok vs. Republic, G.R. No.
L-13347, 31 Aug.
1961; Uy vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20208, 30 June 1965; Yao Long vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-20910, 27 Nov.
1965).  This defect in petitioner’s application is
all the more serious on account of his not having filed a notice of intention
to apply for citizenship.

In his petition for
naturalization, dated 19 June 1958, the appellant stated that he had five (5)
children.  He amended this petition on 15
December 1958
stating he had eight (8) children, but has given no explanation for this
startling difference.

This applicant’s supposed
children are Vicente, Alejandra, Gloria, Elisa, Mary,
Edita, William and Henry.  They bear different surnames, either “Ao” or “San”.  Some of them have “Ang
Yie” as their mother; the others, “Ang Yee”.  They
use names in school entirely different from their registered names; thus,
Alejan­dro Ao is known in school as “Uy Lian Hui“;
Vicente Ao uses “Uy Lian Hong”; Mary Ao as
“Mary Uy“; Gloria Ao
as “Uy Siok Be”;
and Edita Ao, as
“Elisa Uy“. 
The birth certificates of Vicente and Gloria show that they were born on
3 January 1938
and 9 July 1937,
respectively.

The foregoing
circumstances throw a grave doubt that these are all the petitioner’s
children.  Parenthetically, they make out
an attempt, reflective of a reproachable character, to turn all these children
into Filipino citizens, should the petition be suc­cessful.  It is a poor excuse that the petitioner
simply made a mistake in his original petition when he stated that he had five
(5) children, instead of eight (8).  Add
this to the confusion of given names and surnames, registered names and school
names.  The interval of the dates of birth
between Vicente and Gloria, is five (5) months and
twenty-five (25) days only.  While a utero­gestation period like this is possible, it is so rare
an oddity (Herzog, Medical Jurisprudence, Sec. 973-975) that the doubt becomes
graver still that all these children are those of the peti­tioner.  In itself, this aspect of petitioner’s case
betrays lack of good moral character.

The dismissal of the
petition as “without prejudice” by the lower court because it found
that petitioner not suffering from any disqualification, is not justified.  Instead of welcoming the oppor­tunity to submit
frank and credible explanation for the discrepan­cies pointed out by the
Government counsel, as applicant should have done, had he the true interest of
the country at heart, applicant has sought refuge in technicalities.

The preceding discussion
makes it unnecessary to discuss the other objections raised by the Government.

For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order is hereby affirmed, with
the modification that the dismissal shall be with prejudice.  Costs against appellant Ao San.

Makalintal, Bengzon,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on leave.